DOE v. WHITE

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joan Humphrey Lefkow, United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Jane Doe ("Doe"), brings this action against defendants, Officer Charlie White ("White") and the City of Chicago ("Chicago"), in a seven-Count Complaint. Against White, Doe alleges illegal seizure and detention pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I); violations of equal protection pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count II); slate law claims for assault and battery (Count III); state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count IV); and a state law claim for false arrest (Count V). Doe alleges that Chicago is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior under state law (Count VI) and for indemnification under state law pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102 (Count VII). Chicago has now moved under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ. P., for summary judgment as to the Count VI and VII claims against it. The court has jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343(a) and 1367. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS

Summary judgment obviates the need for a trial where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). To determine whether any genuine fact exists, the court must pierce the pleadings and assess the proof as presented in depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits that are part of the record. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c) Advisory Committee's notes. The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of proving there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In response, the nonmoving party cannot rest on bare pleadings alone but must use the evidentiary tools listed above to designate specific material facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324; Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 216 F.3d 596. 598 (7th Cir. 2000). A material fact must be outcome determinative under the governing law. Insolia, 216 F.3d at 598-99. Although a bare contention that an issue of fact exists is insufficient to create a factual dispute, Bellaver v. Quanex Corp., 200 F.3d 485, 492 (7th Cir. 2000), the court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party as well as view all reasonable inferences in that party's favor, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

FACTS STATED IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO PLAINTIFF

Doe is an adult woman and at all relevant times has been a resident of Chicago, Illinois. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 1.) White, also a resident of Chicago, was at all relevant times employed as a police officer by Chicago. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 2.) Chicago is an Illinois municipality. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 3.)

On November 13, 1999, Doe was involved in a collision with a pickup truck, whose driver left the scene and abandoned the truck after the accident. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶¶ 10-13.) Doe starred to drive home after the accident but saw a Chicago Police Department van. (Def L.R. 56.1 ¶ 13.) Doe pulled up to the van and told White, the officer in the van, about the accident. (Id.) White told her to lead him back to the scene, where he stated that he would make a report of the accident. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 14.) In connection with making the report, Doe gave White her driver's license. (Id.)

During the making of the report, White "flirted" with Doe, told her how pretty she was, asked her where she worked, stated that he would have to come have a drink where Doe worked as a bartender, and repeatedly asked Doe for her phone number. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶¶ 4-5, 10; Doe Dep. at 37-40.) Doe gave White information about where she previously had worked, and gave him a false phone number, because Doe did not know any other way to get out of the situation quickly and safely and because she did not want White to come where she worked. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 9; Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 17.) Doe was uncomfortable and embarrassed during the incident. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 12.) Doe believed something was wrong with White because he was coming onto her while filling out the report. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 13.)

Later that night, at 10:11 p.m., White called the wrong number Doe had given to him from the 17th District police station. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 14.) During the months of November and January, White called Doe's home this time using the correct number — thirty to forty times while on and off-duty.*fn1 (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 15.) White admits to calling Doe from home, the 17th District police station, and Jerusalem Liquor Store, all while on duty. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 16.) These calls came at times when Doe would not normally receive phone calls, such as at 11:30 p.m., 1:00 am. and 2:00 am. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 20) Doe, who had caller I.D. and normally did not pick up the phone if she did not recognize the number, on one occasion inadvertently picked up the phone and had a conversation with White. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 23.) White told Doe that he would come over for "that drink she owed him." (Id.) Doe got off the phone as quickly as she could by making excuses about her parents. (Id.) Doe specifically told White not to call her again and refused to give White her home address when he requested it. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶¶ 26-27.)

On January 8, 2000, Doe was traveling in her car when she saw White driving a police minivan, on-duty, in uniform, and with a partner. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 32.) Doe attempted to get away without White seeing her, but he recognized Doe and changed his direction of travel to pull her over. (Id.) As White and his partner exited the vehicle, White stated that the reason he had pulled Doe over was because she had committed a traffic offense. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 35.) White asked Doe for her driver's license and where she was going. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 37.) Doe responded that she was going to work, even though she was not, because she did not want him to bother her and felt pressured and intimidated. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 38.) White told Doe that he was going to stop by her home. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 46.)

On January 21, 2000, White, while on duty, in uniform, and driving a police van, came to the front door of Doe's residence, but Doe was not at home. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 37.) On January 25, 2000, Doe was at home with her outer gate locked. (Def. Resp. to Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 39.) White broke into Doe's home and entered her kitchen while Doe was asleep in an adjacent room. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 41.) During this encounter, of which Doe became aware when her child stated that there was a man in the kitchen, Doe repeatedly indicated to White while he was walking around searching the apartment that he should leave. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 44.) Doe told White to leave because she had things to do and she had to go to work that night. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 63.) White responded that he also had to go and asked to use the bathroom, which he was allowed to do. (Id.) White used the bathroom and came out into the kitchen. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 64.) Doe noticed that White had not closed the zipper on his pants and was exposing himself (Id.) White then came up behind Doe and started rubbing himself against her while he was holding her by her waist. (Id.) Doe asked White to stop, and when he did, she asked him to leave. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 66.)

White later visited Doe's house again on January 30, but Doe was not at home. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 74.) Doe then contacted the Chicago Police Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") and complained about White's conduct, although Doe did not give her name. (Def. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 76; Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 51.)

On February 7, Doe, after being awakened by her son, saw that White had again broken into her home and was standing inside her apartment by her bed. (Pl. Resp. to Def L.R. 56.1 ¶ 77.) Doe began screaming and told White that she was calling 911, to which White responded by saying that "he was 911." (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 55.) Doe called the OPS and demanded that someone take her complaint. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 57.) Doe spoke with Cindy Gross from the Internal Affairs Division. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 59.) Doe continued, however, to receive phone calls from White. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶¶ 61-63.) White also came to Doe's home on February 14 and tried to open the door and enter her apartment. (Pl. L.R. 56.1 ¶ 65.) Doe continued her complaint process through the OPS and Internal Affairs, and eventually the Police ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.